Improving daily stochastic streamflow prediction: comparison of novel hybrid data-mining algorithms

References

• Adnan, M., et al., 2019. Least square support vector machine and multivariate adaptive regression splines for streamflow prediction in mountainous basin using hydro-meteorological data as inputs. Journal of Hydrology. (in press). doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akhavan, S., et al., 2010. Application of swat model to investigate nitrate leaching in hamadan–bahar watershed, Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139 (4), 675–688. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman, N.S., 1992. An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric regression. The American Statistician, 46, 175–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASCE. 1993. Criteria for evaluating watershed models. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 119 (3), 429–442.
   Google Scholar
• Auria, L. and Moro, R.A., 2009. Support Vector Machines (SVM) as a technique for solvency analysis. DIW Berlin Discussion Paper No. 811. Available at SSRN: doi:10.2139/ssrn.1424949.
   Google Scholar
• Ayaz, Y., Kocamaz, A.F., and Karakoç, M.B., 2015. Modeling of compressive strength and UPV of high-volume mineral-admixtured concrete using rule-based M5 rule and tree model M5P classifiers. Construction and Building Materials, 94, 235–240. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayele, G., et al., 2017. Streamflow and sediment yield prediction for watershed prioritization in the Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Ethiopia Water, 9, 782.
   Google Scholar
• Baez-Villanueva, O.M., et al., 2020. RF-MEP: a novel Random Forest method for merging gridded precipitation products and ground-based measurements. Remote Sensing of Environment, 239, 111606. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahat, Y., et al., 2009. Rainfall-runoff modelling in a small hyper-arid catchment. Journal of Hydrology, 373 (1–2), 204–217. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bala, J., et al. 1996. Using learning to facilitate the evolution of features for recognizing visual concepts. Evolutionary Computation, 4 (3), 297–311. doi:10.1162/evco.1996.4.3.297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beven, K.J., 2001. Rainfall-runoff modelling: the primer. 2nd ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley, Sons, 449 p. ISBN: 978-0-470-71459-1.
   Google Scholar
• Beven, K.J., 2005. Rainfall-runoff modelling: introduction. Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. doi:10.1002/0470848944.
   Google Scholar
• Bhuiyan, M.A., Nikolopoulos, E.I., and Anagnostou, E.N., 2019. Machine learning-based blending of satellite and reanalysis precipitation datasets: a multiregional tropical complex terrain evaluation. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 20 (11), 2147–2161. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-19-0073.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Box, G.E.P. and Jenkins, G.M., 1970. Time series analysis, forecasting, and control. Francisco Holden-Day (6), 712. ISBN: 978-1-118-67502-1.
   Google Scholar
• Boz, O., 2002. Feature subset selection by using sorted feature relevance. in ICMLA. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning and Applications.Published in ICMLA 2002. Citeseer.
   Google Scholar
• Breiman, L., et al., 1984. Classifcation and regression trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth International Group, 432.
   Google Scholar
• Breiman, L., 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24 (2), 123–140. doi:10.1007/BF00058655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning, 45 (1), 5–32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bui, D., et al. 2018a. New hybrids of anfis with several optimization algorithms for flood susceptibility modeling. Water, 10 (9), 1210. doi:10.3390/w10091210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bui, D., et al. 2018b. Novel hybrid evolutionary algorithms for spatial prediction of floods. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 15364. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-33755-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burges, C.J. 1998. A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2, 121–167. doi:10.1023/A:1009715923555.
   Google Scholar
• Çelik, Ö., Teke, A., and Yildirim, H.B., 2016. The optimized artificial neural network model with Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for global solar radiation estimation in Eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Journal of Clean Production, 116, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.082.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, T.K., et al., 2017. Choice of rainfall inputs for event-based rainfall-runoff modelling in a catchment with multiple rainfall stations using data-driven techniques. Journal of Hydrology, 545, 100–108. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.12.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, W., et al., 2019. Spatial prediction of groundwater potentiality using ANFIS ensembled with Teaching-learning-based and Biogeography-based optimization. Journal of Hydrology, 527, 435–448. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, M.P., et al., 2017. The evolution of process-based hydrologic models: historical challenges and the collective quest for physical realism. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21 (7), 3427–3440. doi:10.5194/hess-21-3427-2017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contreras, J., et al., 2018. Rainfall monitoring network design using conditioned Latin hypercube sampling and satellite precipitation estimates: an application in the ungauged Ecuadorian Amazon. International Journal of Climatology, 39 (4), 2209–2226. doi:10.1002/joc.5946.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danandeh Mehr, A., et al., 2019. A hybrid support vector regression–firefly model for monthly rainfall forecasting. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16 (1), 335–346. doi:10.1007/s13762-018-1674-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, C.W. and Wilby, R., 1998. An artificial neural network approach to rainfall-runoff modelling. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 43 (1), 47–66. doi:10.1080/02626669809492102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehghani, M., Riahi-Madvar, H., Hooshyaripor, F., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Zavadskas, E.K., and Chau, K. 2019. Prediction of hydropower generation using grey wolf optimization adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Energies, 12 (2), Article no. 289. doi:10.3390/en12020289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirel, M.C., Booij, M.J., and Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. The skill of seasonal ensemble low-flow forecasts in the Moselle River for three different hydrological models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19 (1), 275–291. doi:10.5194/hess-19-275-2015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodangeh, E., et al., 2019. Joint frequency analysis and uncertainty estimation of coupled rainfall–runoff series relying on historical and simulated data. Hydrological Sciences Journal. (In press). doi:10.1080/02626667.2019.1704762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodangeh, E., Shahedi, K., Solaimani, K., and Kossieris, P., 2017. Usability of BLRP model for hydrological applications in arid and semi arid regions with limited precipitation data. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3 (2), 539–555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodangeh, E., Shahedi, K., and Solaimani, 2018. Application of Copula theory for IHACRES hydrologic model evaluation (Case study: Taleghan watershed). Journal of Earth and Space Physics, 44 (1), 71–88. (in Persian).
   Google Scholar
• Furundzic, D., 1998. Application example of neural networks for time series analysis: rainfall–runoff modelling. Signal Processing, 64 (3), 383–396. doi:10.1016/S0165-1684(97)00203-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautam, M.R., Atanabe, K.W., and Aegusa, H.S., 2000. Runoff analysis in humid forest catchment with artificial neural network. Journal of Hydrology, 235 (1–2), 117–136. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00268-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, H.V., et al., 2009. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 377 (1–2), 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habib, E., et al., 2014. Effect of bias correction of satellite-rainfall estimates on runoff simulations at the source of the Upper Blue Nile. Remote Sensing, 6 (7), 6688–6708. doi:10.3390/rs6076688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashmi, S., Halawani, S.M., Barukab, O.M., and Ahmad, A. 2015. Model trees and sequential minimal optimization based support vector machine models for estimating minimum surface roughness value. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39 (3–4), 1119–1136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, Y., Bárdossy, A., and Zehe, E., 2011. A review of regionalisation for continuous streamflow simulation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15 (11), 3539–3553. doi:10.5194/hess-15-3539-2011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hengl, T., et al., 2017. Soil grids 250 m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One, 12 (2), e0169748. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrnegger, M., Senone, T., and Nachtnebel, H.P., 2018. Adjustment of spatio-temporal precipitation patterns in a high Alpine environment. Journal of Hydrology, 556, 913–921. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, T.K., 1995. Random decision forests. In: Document analysis and recognition, 1995, proceedings of the third international conference on document analysis and recognition (Volume 1). IEEE, 278–282.
   Google Scholar
• Honorato, A.G., Silva, G.B., and Santos, C.A. 2018. Monthly streamflow forecasting using neuro-wavelet techniques and input analysis. Hydrological Science Journal, 63 (15–16), 2060–2075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, K.I., Gupta, H.V., and Sorooshian, S., 1995. Artificial neural network modelling of the rainfall‐runoff process. Water Resources Research, 31 (10), 2517–2530. doi:10.1029/95WR01955.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, D. and Kim, Y.O., 2005. Rainfall‐runoff models using artificial neural networks for ensemble stream flow prediction. Hydrological Process, 19 (19), 3819–3835. doi:10.1002/hyp.5983.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosravi, K., et al., 2019b. Stochastic modeling of groundwater fluoride contamination: introducing lazy learners. Groundwater. (in press). doi:10.1111/gwat.12963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosravi, K., et al., 2019a. Meteorological data mining and hybrid data-intelligence models for reference evaporation simulation: a case study in Iraq. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 167, 105041. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2019.105041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosravi, K., et al., 2018. Quantifying hourly suspended sediment load using data mining models: case study of a glacierized Andean catchment in Chile. Journal of Hydrology, 567, 165–179. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirchner, J.W., 2006. Getting the right answers for the right reasons: linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resources Research, 42 (3). doi:10.1029/2005WR004362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kisi, O. and Parmar, K.S., 2016. Application of least square support vector machine and multivariate adaptive regression spline models in long term prediction of river water pollution. Journal of Hydrology, 534, 104–112. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kisi, O., Shiri, J., and Tombul, M., 2012. Modelling rainfall-runoff process using soft computing techniques. Computers & Geosciences, 51, 108–117. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kisi, O., Shiri, J., and Tombul, M., 2013. Modeling rainfall-runoff process using soft computing techniques. Computer and Geoscience, 51, 108–117. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kling, H., Fuchs, M., and Paulin, P., 2012. Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios. Journal of Hydrology, 424-425, 264–277. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kundzewicz, Z.W., et al., 2014. Flood risk and climate change: global and regional perspectives. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 59 (1), 1–28. doi:10.1080/02626667.2013.857411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legates, D.R. and McCabe, G.J., 1999. Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research, 35 (1), 233–241. doi:10.1029/1998WR900018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liaw, A., and Wiwnwe, M. 2002. Classification and Regression by random Forest. R News. http://cogns.northwestern.edu/cbmg/LiawAndWiener2002.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H. and Motoda, H., 2012. Feature selection for knowledge discovery and data mining. Vol. 454. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Lohani, A.K., Goel, N.K., and Bhatia, K.K.S., 2010. Comparative study of neural network, fuzzy logic and linear transfer function techniques in daily rainfall‐runoff modelling under different input domains. Hydrological Process, 25 (2), 175–193. doi:10.1002/hyp.7831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, H., Zhang, Z., and Su, Y., 2014. Analysis of daily solar power prediction with data-driven approaches. Applied Energy, 126, 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallikarjuna, P., Suresh Babu, C.H., and Reddy, A.J.M., 2009. Rainfall—runoff modelling using artificial neural networks. ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 15 (1), 24–33. doi:10.1080/09715010.2009.10514928.
   Google Scholar
• Mehdizadeh, S., et al., 2020. Drought modeling using classic time series and hybrid wavelet-gene expression programming models. Journal of Hydrology, 587, 125017. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melesse, A., et al., 2011. Suspended sediment load prediction of river systems: an artificial neural network approach. Agricultural Water Management, 98 (5), 855–866. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellit, A., et al., 2010. An adaptive model for predicting of global, direct and diffuse hourly solar irradiance. Energy Conversion and Management, 51 (4), 771–782. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2009.10.034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minns, A.W. and Hall, M.J., 1996. Artificial neural networks as rainfall-runoff models. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 41 (3), 399–417. doi:10.1080/02626669609491511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishra, S., et al., 2018. Rainfall-runoff modeling using clustering and regression analysis for the river brahmaputra basin. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 92 (3), 305–312. doi:10.1007/s12594-018-1012-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moriasi, D., et al., 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50 (3), 885–900. doi:10.13031/2013.23153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Najafi, B. and Ardabili, S.F., 2018. Application of ANFIS, ANN, and logistic methods in estimating biogas production from spent mushroom compost (SMC). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 133, 169–178. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nayak, P.C., et al., 2004. A neuro-fuzzy computing technique for modelling hydrological time series. Journal of Hydrology, 291 (1–2), 52–66. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noor, H., et al., 2014. Comparison of single-site and multi-site based calibrations of SWAT in Taleghan Watershed, Iran. International Journal of Engineering, 27 (11), 1645–1652.
   Google Scholar
• Nourani, V., 2017. An Emotional ANN (EANN) approach to modelling rainfall-runoff process. Journal of Hydrology, 544, 267–277. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.11.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nourani, V., Kisi, Ö., and Komasi, M., 2011. Two hybrid Artificial Intelligence approaches for modelling rainfall-runoff process. Journal of Hydrology, 402 (1–2), 41–59. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nourani, V., Komasi, M., and Mano, A., 2009. A multivariate ANN-wavelet approach for rainfall-runoff modelling. Water Resources Management, 23 (14), 2877–2894. doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9414-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olaiya, F. and Adeyemo, A.B., 2012. Application of data mining techniques in weather prediction and climate change studies. International Journal of Information Engineering and Electronic Business, 4 (1), 51–59. doi:10.5815/ijieeb.2012.01.07.
   Google Scholar
• Ömer Faruk, D., 2010. A hybrid neural network and ARIMA model for water quality time series prediction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 23 (4), 586–594. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2009.09.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradhanang, S.M., et al., 2011. Application of swat model to assess snowpack development and streamflow in the cannonsville watershed, new york, USA. Hydrological Processes, 25 (21), 31268–33277. doi:10.1002/hyp.8171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinlan, J.R., 1992. Learning with continuous classes. In: 5th Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence. Samaniego: World Scientific, 343–348.
   Google Scholar
• Rajurak, M.P., Kothyari, U.C., and Chaube, U.C., 2004. Modeling of the daily rainfall-runoff relationship with artificial neural network. Journal of Hydrology, 285 (1–4), 96–113. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.08.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaie-Balf, M., Zahmatkesh, Z., and Kim, S., 2017. Soft computing techniques for rainfall-runoff simulation: local non–parametric paradigm vs. model classification methods. Water Resource Management, 31 (12), 3843–3865. doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1711-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, W.F., 1972. new concept in hydrograph analysis. Water Resources Research, 8 (4), 937–981. doi:10.1029/WR008i004p00973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojek, I., 2009. Classifier models in intelligent CAPP systems. In Man-machine interactions (pp. 311–319). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Engineering, 119 (3), 429–442.
   Google Scholar
• Salih, S., et al., 2019. River suspended sediment load prediction based on river discharge information: application of newly developed data mining models. Hydrological Sciences Journal. (In press). doi:10.1080/02626667.2019.1703186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shibata, R., 1976. Selection of the order of an autoregressive model by Akaike’s information criterion. Biometrika, 63 (1), 117–126. doi:10.1093/biomet/63.1.117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shortridge, J.E., Guikema, S.D., and Zaitchik, F. 2016. Machine learning methods for empirical streamflow simulation: A comparison of model accuracy, interpretability, and uncertainty in seasonal watersheds. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20, 2611–2628. doi:10.5194/hess-20-2611-2016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solaimani, K., 2009. Rainfall-runoff prediction based on artificial neural network (A case study : Jarahi Watershed). American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, 5 (6), 856–865.
   Google Scholar
• Srinivasulu, S. and Jain, A., 2006. A comparative analysis of training methods for artificial neural network rainfall-runoff models. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 6 (3), 295–306. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2005.02.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todini, E., 1988. Rainfall-runoff modelling - past, present and future. Journal of Hydrology, 100 (1–3), 341–352. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(88)90191-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tongal, H. and Booij, M.J., 2017. Quantification of parametric uncertainty of ANN models with GLUE method for different streamflow dynamics. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 31 (4), 993–1010. doi:10.1007/s00477-017-1408-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tongal, H. and Booij, M.J., 2018. Simulation and forecasting of streamflows using machine learning models coupled with base flow separation. Journal of Hydrology, 564, 266–282. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeiren, B., et al., 2012. Assessing urbanisation effects on rainfall-runoff using a remote sensing supported modelling strategy. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 15, 49–56. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2012.08.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voyant, C., et al., 2017. Machine learning methods for solar radiation forecasting: a review. Renewable Energy, 105, 569–582. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.12.095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y. and Witten, I.H., 1997. Induction of model trees for predicting continuous classes. In: Proc. 9th Eur. Conf. Mach. Learn. Poster Pap. Hamilton, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Weng, Q., 2001. Modelling urban growth effects on surface runoff with the integration of remote sensing and GIS. Environmental Management, 28 (6), 737–748. doi:10.1007/s002670010258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, E.F. and Al, E., 2012. hyperresolution global land surface modelling: meeting a grand challenge for monitoring Earth’s terrestrial water. Water Resources Research, 48 (1). doi:10.1029/2010WR010090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue, X., 2017. Prediction of daily diffuse solar radiation using artificial neural networks. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42 (47), 28214–28221. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.09.150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaseen, Z.M., et al., 2015. Artificial intelligence based models for stream-flow forecasting: 2000–2015. Journal of Hydrology, 530, 829–844. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.10.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaseen, Z.M., et al., 2016. Non-tuned machine learning approach for hydrological time series forecasting. Neural Computing & Applications, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2763-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, P.C. and Beven, K.J., 1994. Data‐based mechanistic modelling and the rainfall‐flow non‐linearity. Environmetrics, 5 (3), 335–363. doi:10.1002/env.3170050311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamani Sabzi, H., King, J.P., and Abudu, S., 2017. Developing an intelligent expert system for streamflow prediction, integrated in a dynamic decision support system for managing multiple reservoirs: a case study. Expert Systems with Applications, 83, 145–163. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.04.039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar